13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Applied Ecology 2014, 51, 1469–1478 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12239

Can community outreach alleviate poaching pressure

and recover wildlife in South-East Asian protected
areas?
Robert Steinmetz1*, Surasak Srirattanaporn1, Jirati Mor-Tip2 and Naret Seuaturien1
1
World Wide Fund for Nature Thailand, 87 Soi Paholyothin 5, Paholyothin Road, Samsen Nai, Phayathai, Bangkok
10400, Thailand; and 2Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation, 61 Paholyothin Road, Ladyao,
Jatujak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

Summary
1. Many interventions to stem wildlife poaching have overlooked insights into human behav-
iour offered by the social sciences. South-East Asia suffers the world’s highest rate of wildlife
declines, due mainly to poaching, yet there is little scientific attention on behaviour change,
and few evaluations of the effectiveness of different approaches for stemming poaching.
2. We used social-psychology principles to design a community outreach programme aimed
at reducing poaching in a reserve in Thailand, and we monitored biological and social out-
comes over 4-6 years. Outreach aimed to build trust, raise awareness, motivate, offer oppor-
tunities for action, increase perceived behavioural control of villagers and generate social
pressure against poaching. Behaviour change is promoted when these conditions converge.
3. We conducted 116 outreach events, focusing on adult farmers, children and local leaders.
We assessed poaching trends using encounter rates with poaching signs and questionnaires.
We monitored population status of six hunted mammal species (five ungulates and one
rodent) using sign-based occupancy surveys and camera trapping.
4. Poaching pressure dropped by a factor of four across the park, with multiple short-term
declines (usually to zero) immediately following outreach in seven of nine patrol zones. Park
patrol effort was uncorrelated with poaching trends, contrary to expectations. Questionnaire
responses (n = 311) corresponded to empirical observations: 88% stated that poaching
declined over previous years; the top reason given for this decline was park outreach.
5. In response to safer conditions, occupancy and abundance of five of the six focal species
increased significantly or was stable in all three monitoring sites. Patrol effort was statistically
unrelated to wildlife trends.
6. Synthesis and applications. The weight of evidence in our study points to outreach as the
main driver of a biologically significant decline in poaching that initiated the recovery of
hunted species within the national park. This experiment provides one of the first demonstra-
tions that scientifically designed and proactive park outreach activities might suppress poach-
ing and initiate wildlife recovery in South-East Asia.
Key-words: common property, community-based conservation, conservation psychology,
law enforcement, occupancy, social norm, Theory of Planned Behavior, tiger, ungulates

population decline and endangerment (Ceballos & Ehrlich

Introduction
Overhunting is driving hundreds of wildlife species
towards extinction across the tropics (Vie, Hilton-Taylor
& Stuart 2009). This crisis is gravest in South-East Asia,
where mammals suffer the world’s highest rates of
*Correspondence author. E-mail: robtyn@hotmail.com
2002; Schipper et al. 2008), due largely to commercial
poaching (Corlett 2007). Poaching assails mammal popu-
lations even in protected areas and is so widespread that
intact mammal communities occupy just 1% of their his-
toric ranges here – the lowest prevalence in the world
(Morrison et al. 2007). Reducing poaching in protected
areas is thus an urgent priority, yet there is little scientific

© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society
 13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1470 R. Steinmetz et al.

attention to human behaviour change and few evaluations (a)

of the effectiveness of different approaches towards this
end (Redford, Ray & Boitani 2011).
The most commonly invoked intervention to counteract
poaching is law enforcement patrolling to deter, detect
and punish poachers. This model of enforcement intrinsi-
cally emphasizes economic factors influencing behaviour
(Keane et al. 2008). Economic concepts of decision-
making assume that people are selfish and norm-free
(Ostrom et al. 1999); if so, it follows that the most effec- (b)
tive path to rule compliance is through the threat of sanc-
tions by an outside authority (Sutinen & Kuperan 1999).
These influential concepts commonly underlie conserva-
tion policy and practice (Pretty 2003). However, they are
widely challenged in the social sciences. Empirical
research on resource management shows that economic
models of behaviour often fail to predict actual behaviour
(Ostrom et al. 1999), while psychological research contests
their assumptions as unrealistic and neglectful of many Fig. 1. Conceptual models of protected area management with
other essential influences on behaviour (McFadden 1999). and without community engagement. In (a), without engaged
Correspondingly, models that consider social and psycho- communities, the protected area stands alone against poachers
logical influences on decision-making – including intrinsic (barrier opposing village and town poachers). Most local people
are not poachers (family silhouettes), but are indifferent to
(moral obligation, perceived legitimacy of rules) and
poaching. In (b), community outreach builds awareness, concern
extrinsic (wealth enhancement, social pressure) motiva- and social pressure that constrain poachers. Pressure (grey
tions – tend to predict resource use behaviour better than arrows) comes from neighbours, local leaders and children.
ones based solely on economic risks and rewards (Sutinen Engaged communities might also help obstruct urban poachers
& Kuperan 1999). (barrier shifted to the right, opposing town poachers). The model
of outreach in (b) was used in Kuiburi National Park, Thailand,
The insights into human behaviour offered by the social
2008–2011.
sciences have scarcely been used in biodiversity conserva-
tion (St. John, Edwards-Jones & Jones 2010), despite rec-
ognition that conservation is essentially about people reluctant to act; new social norms now motivate him to
(Schultz 2011). The Theory of Planned Behaviour identifies comply with others’ expectations (Fig. 1). We attempted
the interaction of attitudes, social norms and perceived to achieve this scenario at a national park in Thailand
behavioural control, in determining human intentions and through community outreach that engaged local people in
actions (Ajzen & Madden 1986). Humans have an evolu- recovering wildlife. We conducted outreach for 4 years
tionary propensity to respond to social norms or shared (2008–2011), and assessed behavioural outcomes by moni-
understandings about expectations regarding appropriate toring poaching pressure in the forest (2008–2011) and
behaviour (Ostrom 2000). Attitudes, which are the combi- through questionnaire surveys in buffer-zone villages
nation of knowledge and a positive or negative judgment (2010). We monitored population responses of six hunted
(Jacobson, McDuff & Monroe 2006), interact with social mammal species over 6 years using sign-based occupancy
norms to determine behavioural intentions (McCleery et al. surveys (2006–2011) and camera trapping (2007, 2009 and
2006). Perceived behavioural control refers to perceived 2011). Our study lacked an untreated control site; instead,
ability to successfully perform a particular behaviour, such we employed diverse, independent sources of evidence
as by possessing the necessary knowledge, resources and (triangulation) to draw inferences about observed
autonomy, and exert control over one’s life. changes. Although we used the theory of planned behav-
Set within this overarching framework of human behav- iour to frame our approach, we did not measure changes
iour, wildlife poaching can be viewed from new angles. in the underlying determinants of behaviour defined by
Poachers often constitute a minority of society in South- the theory, and our study does not test the theory itself.
East Asia (Rao et al. 2010), and the wider populace is
generally indifferent to poaching. Thus, poachers are free
Materials and methods
to act without fear of social repercussions such as shame
and social rejection (Fig. 1). But suppose neighbours,
STUDY SITE
family members and local leaders became less tolerant of
poaching, in response to new knowledge and incentives. Kuiburi National Park (969 km2; hereafter, Kuiburi) is in
What if increased interactions with park staff created a the Tenasserim Mountains in Thailand (99°350 E, 12°100
new level of trust and understanding that increased sup- N; Fig. 2). The park is mountainous (elevation to 946 m)
port for conservation efforts? A poacher might now be and covered predominantly by evergreen forest. Kuiburi

© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478

Fig. 2. Kuiburi National Park, Thailand,
showing patrol zones (names in italics),
wildlife monitoring zones (dark grey
blocks), camera-trap locations, and villages
and schools that received outreach
between 2008–2011.
is surrounded by agriculture, except to the west where it
is contiguous with forest in Myanmar. The predominant
occupation of local people is pineapple farming. Most vil-
lages were established 30–50 years ago, before the park
was created. There are 29 villages within 5 km of the park
(predominantly Thai ethnicity), and one village inside
(Karen ethnicity). Hunting is illegal in Thai national
parks. Hunting in Kuiburi is conducted by local villagers,
urban hunters from provincial towns, and government
officials (RS, pers. comm. with park staff). Most hunting
is by gun; snaring is not widespread. Most hunting is
done for sale; some is for subsistence and sport.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
We focused on three strata of society: local leaders, adult villag-
ers and school children. Our outreach approach targeted six
social or psychological conditions that influence attitudes, social
norms or perceived control and thereby influence behaviour. The
first was trust, which underlies constructive relationships and
increases peoples’ receptiveness to conservation messages (Stern
2008). Second was justification: public support for conservation
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478
13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Outreach to reduce wildlife poaching 1471
depends on clear justifications, in turn requiring education (Won-
dolleck & Yaffee 2000). Third was motivation: education must be
coupled with motivation for change to occur (Schultz 2011).
Fourth was ethics: perceived legitimacy of rules, in this case
about poaching, can be influenced by ethical views (Tyler 1990).
Fifth was feasible actions: simple possibilities for action must be
available if new knowledge and motivations are to be acted upon
(Kaplan 2000). Sixth was confidence: we attempted to dispel feel-
ings of helplessness, thereby strengthening perceived behavioural
control and confidence to act (Kaplan 2000).
We aimed to establish trust through face-to-face communica-
tion in which we made our values explicit, telling people we
intended to recover wildlife populations and needed their help.
We provided justification by educating people about the ecology
and status of Kuiburi’s wildlife (in the park, nationally, and glob-
ally), emphasizing the effects of poaching on distribution and
abundance. We motivated people by promoting direct and indi-
rect benefits of conservation, by illustrating connections between
intact wildlife communities, healthy forests, provision of
resources such as secure water supplies, and thus the health and
happiness of peoples’ families. For ethics, we spoke of empathy
and moral responsibility to prevent species extinction and related
a Buddhist parable about helping other species. We also tried to

1472 R. Steinmetz et al.
engage people emotionally by relating real-life stories about the
park’s wildlife told through camera-trap photographs and videos.
Next, we proposed three feasible actions people could take: (i) tell
others about the precarious state of Kuiburi’s wildlife, (ii) recon-
sider hunting or eating wildlife (except for crop-raiding wild pigs)
(iii) reject outside poachers by refusing access through villages or
anonymously alerting the park. Lastly, we supplied confidence by
relating accounts of other communities that overcame environ-
mental degradation.
Outreach was conducted in communities from April 2008 to
June 2011, by a team of 6–10 park staff and the authors. Venues
included village meetings, schools, temple fairs, youth camps at
the park, and government meetings at district, county and pro-
vincial levels. We also met with village chiefs at their residences.
Outreach events in villages included slide shows, quiz games and
musical performances by park rangers. Outreach events in
schools added games and a session to elicit student ‘wildlife
recovery plans’. Further, in August 2009, we initiated a Wildlife
Recovery Network with 11 local schools. Teachers drafted and
implemented a curriculum focused on wildlife recovery and orga-
nized two anti-poaching parades and wildlife viewing events at
the park. Students were encouraged to relate their new knowledge
and concerns to parents, thereby potentially influencing parents’
behaviour. Appendix S1 in Supporting Information has more
details on outreach methods.
MONITORING PATROL EFFORT AND POACHING
PRESSURE
Kuiburi is divided into nine patrol zones (each 60–120 km2,
Fig. 2) in which teams of 4–6 rangers patrol on foot for 1–4 days
at a time, recording their routes with a GPS. Patrol effort has
been recorded since 2006, and poaching pressure since November
2008. Zones shared similar habitats (predominantly mountainous
evergreen forest) but differed with respect to numbers of nearby
villages (lowest in Hup Takien).
Patrols recorded evidence of poaching (shotgun shells, tree
stands, snares, carcasses, hunting camps) on standardized forms.
Clumped evidence (e.g. shotgun shells within 10 m of each
other; camps with animal carcasses) was counted as one event.
Rangers directed patrols to maximize encounters with poachers,
by walking trails, streams and ridges that poachers use. We
accompanied five patrols to verify reliability and accuracy of
data. Kuiburi’s patrol system had features that promoted reli-
able data collection even when unaccompanied: no motivation
to falsify data as ranger compensation was not linked with
detection of poachers, and regular meetings to review each
zone’s patrol records, generating peer pressure to maintain high
standards.
We used number of patrol days as an indicator of patrol effort.
We used encounter rate of poaching signs per 100 km as an index
of poaching pressure. Mean monthly patrol efforts in each zone
(total patrol days/12 months) were averaged to yield mean
annual park-wide patrol effort. Likewise, annual poaching indices
in each zone [(total poaching signs/total km patrolled) 9 100]
were averaged to yield a mean annual index of park-wide poach-
ing pressure. We tested for differences in mean patrol effort
between years with a Kruskal–Wallis test (n = 27; 9
zones 9 3 years). We tested for a trend in the poaching index
over time using a Jonckheere test, a nonparametric test for trends
(n = 26; one zone did not patrol in 2011).
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478
13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Patrol data must be interpreted carefully to draw reliable infer-
ences about poaching. We believe our data reliably reflect poach-
ing pressure for three reasons. First, in Kuiburi, poaching signs
are readily detected because they tend to occur near trails, water
sources and ridges that poachers use for travel and hunting. In
6 years of fieldwork, involving substantial off-trail travel, we have
never observed poaching signs away from these topographical
features. This reflects poachers’ behaviour rather than detectabil-
ity, as many signs are big (camps, tree platforms) or colourful
(i.e. red shotgun shell casings). Thus, we believe that patrols
encounter most poaching signs. Secondly, we used fine-scale data
from multiple small zones, avoiding the situation whereby data
from a small area are used to infer overall changes (Keane, Jones
& Milner-Gulland 2011). Thirdly, all data were from routine sur-
veillance patrols conducted on foot, rather than motorized or
intelligence-led patrols, so variation in patrol methods was not a
confounding factor (Keane, Jones & Milner-Gulland 2011).
WILDLIFE POPULATION TRENDS
We monitored population changes in five ungulate and one
rodent species that were commonly hunted: red muntjac Muntia-
cus muntjak, Fea’s muntjac M. feae, sambar Cervus unicolor, wild
pig Sus scrofa, gaur Bos gaurus and Malayan porcupine Hystrix
brachyura. Animals occurred at low density and were difficult to
observe directly so we used two indirect methods, sign-based
occupancy surveys (ungulates only) and camera trapping (all six
species), to assess population status.
Occupancy surveys were conducted in the dry season (Novem-
ber–June) annually or semi-annually from 2006 to 2011 at three
sites (each 30–50 km2, Fig. 2) that harboured remnant concentra-
tions of the focal species. Sample units were 1-km2 blocks, in
which we placed a 400 9 2 m sign transect using a random start-
ing point. We conducted 21–30 transects per site each sampling
period. Transects were led by the same three observers through-
out the study. Most transects followed streams, trails and ridges.
Transects were divided into eight segments each of 50 m. We
recorded presence or non-detection of fresh signs (tracks and
dung assessed as <1 week old) of each species in each segment.
Muntjac species were pooled for analysis as their signs could not
be distinguished. The replicate segments produced detection his-
tories which were used to estimate detection probability and
occupancy (defined here as proportion of 1-km2 blocks used)
(MacKenzie et al. 2002), using program PRESENCE (Hines
2006).
Our analysis considered two categorical covariates that might
affect sign detection (tracking condition, observer team) and two
covariates that might affect animal habitat use (transect placement,
habitat type). Tracking condition was scored per segment as easy,
moderate or difficult, based on degree of ground vegetation and
leaf litter that limited sign visibility. Surveys occurred at the same
season each year, mitigating seasonal or weather effects on sign
detectability. Transect placement (trail, ridge, stream or cross-
country) and habitat type (deciduous or evergreen forest) were site-
level covariates affecting occupancy. We also fitted a model that
accounted for spatial autocorrelation (Hines et al. 2010), and an
abundance-induced heterogeneity model (Royle & Nichols 2003).
Finally, we fitted a null model without covariates. In sum, we com-
pared seven models for each species per site per year. We derived
occupancy estimates from top models (lowest AIC) or by averaging
models with similar support (DAIC < 2). We used linear regression

of annual occupancy against time to assess occupancy trends for
each species at each site. We assessed significance using 1-tailed
tests as we expected occupancy to increase.
We augmented occupancy surveys with camera trapping to
independently assess wildlife population trends. We placed cam-
eras at 25–28 locations, 2–4 km apart, along ridges, streams,
trails and waterholes, in a 130-km2 area that encompassed two of
the occupancy survey areas (Pa Yang, Klong Kui). We trapped
in 2007 (April–June, 1055 trap nights), 2009 (December–March,
1458 nights) and 2011 (December–April, 2494 nights), reusing
most camera locations each time. Cameras were set in the same
way each year: 40 cm above the ground, 2 m from paths, no
baits or lures, and operational 24 h per day. We used numbers of
independent photographs of each species (i.e. not consecutive,
different individuals, or >30 min apart) per 100 trap nights as a
proxy for abundance (Rovero & Marshall 2009). We tested for
significant differences in mean photograph rates across years for
each species using 1-tailed Kruskal–Wallis tests.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ANTI-POACHING
INTERVENTIONS
We conducted three analyses that probed for possible causes of
observed changes in poaching pressure and wildlife status.
Deterrence effect of patrolling
High risk of detection is believed to be a major deterrent to
poachers (Leader-Williams & Milner-Gulland 1993). If patrols
deterred poachers, there should be an inverse relationship
between patrol effort and poaching evidence. Poaching signs in
the forest reflect poaching activity prior to the patrol that
observes those signs. Thus, to test this deterrence effect, we exam-
ined the relationship between patrol effort in a given month, and
the poaching index from the following month, in that same zone,
using Spearman’s correlation (n = 151 pairs of patrol-poaching
data across nine zones).
Effect of intensive outreach on poaching
From June to November 2010, we conducted an intensive cam-
paign of 26 outreach events (11 villages, 15 schools) next to eight
patrol zones. Multiple events were organized in close succession
(most within 3 months) at a zone, potentially generating high lev-
els of localized interest and pressure. This provided an opportu-
nity to examine short-term, spatially explicit effects of intensive
outreach. We divided patrol effort and poaching index data for
each zone into two periods that included the months before
(n = 7–19 months, median = 95) and after (n = 2–8 months,
median = 65) the campaign, omitting months in which the cam-
paign was underway in a zone. We averaged monthly patrol
effort and monthly poaching indices in each period for each zone
and tested differences between periods using Wilcoxon signed-
rank tests for paired data (n = 8 zones 9 2 periods = 16; one
zone did not conduct post-outreach patrolling).
Effect of patrolling on wildlife trends
If wildlife recovery depended on patrolling, there should be a
positive association between patrol effort and wildlife population
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478
13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Outreach to reduce wildlife poaching 1473
responses. We calculated annual patrol effort (mean days per
month) in or around (within 1 km) the three wildlife monitoring
sites from 2006 to 2011. We assessed the effect of patrolling on
wildlife occupancy trends using linear regression, with annual
patrol effort at a site as the predictor variable, and mean occu-
pancy of the four ungulate species per site as the response vari-
able (n = 13 site-year combinations). There could be a lag time
between patrolling and wildlife population responses. Thus, we
also tested whether patrolling influenced occupancy in subsequent
years, by regressing mean occupancy in year t + 1 on patrol
effort in year t (n = 10). Distribution of residuals was normal.
Statistical significance for all analyses was assessed at a = 005.
PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES QUESTIONNAIRE
We used multiple-choice questionnaires (June–September 2010) to
obtain information on poaching. We attended regular monthly
village meetings and requested all adults to complete question-
naires. Questionnaires were designed to promote truthful
responses: first, they were anonymous, and secondly, they per-
tained to the respondent’s village in general rather than to the
respondent himself or herself. Further, we had no intention to
incriminate or punish and stated this clearly. Questionnaire sur-
veys followed the ethical guidelines of Association of Social
Anthropologists of the UK & the Commonwealth (1999).
Questionnaires had four parts. Part 1 asked for the respondent’s
opinion about trends (increase, decrease, no change) in each of six
types of poaching-related behaviour during the preceding 5 years:
(i) consumption of wildlife, (ii) sale of wildlife within village, (iii)
sale to outsiders, (iv) hunting by villagers, (v) hunting by outsiders
and (vi) hiring of villagers to hunt by outsiders. Respondents then
assessed the overall trend in poaching during the past 5 years
(increase, decrease or no change). This period covered the time
over which our project was active in the park. In Part 2, respon-
dents selected from among nine possible causes of the overall
poaching trend they had identified: (changes in) park patrolling,
park outreach, wildlife abundance, market demand, number of
hunters, time available for hunting, income, conservation aware-
ness, and interest in consuming wildlife. Respondents could
choose more than one response. Part 3 asked about attitude
towards wildlife recovery (support, oppose or indifferent).
Results
OVERALL TRENDS IN OUTREACH, PATROLLING AND
POACHING
We conducted 116 outreach events between 2008 and
2011, directly reaching about 7500 people. Outreach effort
peaked in 2011 at 53 events per month (Fig. 3). We vis-
ited 24 villages and schools, or 83% of villages within
5 km of the park (Fig. 2), each 1–5 times.
Total patrol effort throughout the park was 101 days in
2009, 189 days in 2010 and 130 days in 2011. Mean
monthly patrol effort per zone was highest in 2010
(17 days, SD = 089) compared with 2009 (094 days,
SD = 042) and 2011 (12 days, SD = 096) (Fig. 3), but
differences were not significant (v2 = 469, d.f. = 2,
P = 010).

1474 R. Steinmetz et al.
Fig. 3. Trends in patrol effort (mean days patrolled per month),
outreach (events per month) and poaching pressure (signs per
100 km) in Kuiburi National Park, Thailand, 2009–2011.
Fig. 4. Trends in occupancy of five hunted ungulate species at three
sites in Kuiburi National Park, Thailand, 2006–2011. Percentage
occupancy represents percentage of 1-km2 survey blocks used by a
species. Error bars = 1 SE. Muntjac includes M. muntjac and M. feae.
Poaching pressure declined 4-fold (J = 785,
z = 1609, P = 0059), from 101 hunting signs per
100 km (SD = 110) in 2009, to 68 (SD = 69) in 2010, to
24 (SD = 25) in 2011 (Fig. 3).
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478
13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WILDLIFE POPULATION TRENDS
Occupancy of most species increased at each site (Fig. 4),
based on positive regression coefficients in 9 of 12 cases
(4 species 9 3 sites = 12). Three increases were statistically
significant: pig at Klong Kui (r2 = 087, F = 1329,
P = 0034, d.f. = 1,2), and muntjac (r2 = 088, F = 2262,
P = 0018, d.f. = 1,2) and pig (r2 = 066, F = 587,
P = 0045, d.f. = 1,3) at Hup Inthanin. Gaur were nearly
extinct in Klong Kui in 2006, but small numbers of males
began using the area periodically in 2008, followed by herds
(based on tracks of adults with calves) in 2011 (Fig. 4). The
increasing trend was not statistically significant (r2 = 044,
F = 16, P = 017, d.f. = 1,2), although we considered
recolonization of former range by breeding herds to be bio-
logically significant. Gaur were absent from Hup Inthanin.
Sambar occupancy was high (c. 50%) and stable at Hup
Inthanin, but declined at two other sites, although not sig-
nificantly (r2 < 072, F < 5, P > 007, d.f. = 1,3).
Photograph encounter rates of all species were stable or
increased over the study (Fig. 5), corresponding to occu-
pancy results. Encounter rates of wild pig (v2 = 851,
d.f. = 2, P = 0007), gaur (v2 = 1152, P = 0002) and por-
cupine (v2 = 522, P = 0037) more than doubled, whereas
trends for the two muntjac species were stable (v2 < 074,
P > 028). Sambar was the rarest species, consistent with
occupancy results at Klong Kui and Pa Yang, although
encounter rates were stable (v2 = 353, P = 0086).
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ANTI-POACHING
INTERVENTIONS
Deterrence effect of patrolling
There was no correlation between patrol effort and
poaching pressure (r = 0014, P = 043).
Effect of intensive outreach
Poaching declined significantly after our outreach cam-
paign, falling to zero in most zones (medianbefore = 47
Fig. 5. Trends in photograph encounter rates of six hunted species
in Kuiburi National Park, Thailand, 2007–2011, from 28 camera
traps set across a 130-km2 sampling area. Error bars = 1 SE.

signs per 100 km, medianafter = 0, T = 1, Z = 238,
P = 0017; Fig. 6). Patrol effort across zones was typically
between 1 and 3 days per month in each period (Fig. 6)
and did not differ significantly before and after the cam-
paign (medianbefore = 10, medianafter = 17, T = 8,
Z = 1402, P = 0161).
Effect of patrolling on wildlife trends
Mean patrol days per month at wildlife monitoring sites
ranged from zero at Hup Inthanin in 2006, to 154 at Pa
Yang in 2008. There was no relationship between patrol
effort and occupancy trends of ungulates, either in the same
year (r2 = 0036, F = 0416, P = 0532, d.f. = 1,11), or sub-
sequent years (r2 = 0009, F = 0074, P = 0792, d.f. = 1,8).
PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES QUESTIONNAIRE
We obtained questionnaires from 311 adults (ages 18–73,
median = 35; 59% female) from 12 villages that together
encircled the park from north to south (Fig. 2). Most
respondents indicated a decline in each of the six types of
poaching behaviour (69–81% of respondents, among the six
types of poaching); fewer chose ‘increase’ (8–16%) or ‘no
change’ (12–17%). Most respondents (88%) concluded that
overall trends in poaching in their area showed declines.
The remainder thought these behaviours had not changed
(7%) or increased (5%). The top reason given for the
decline in poaching was ‘increased park outreach’ (67%),
followed by ‘increased patrolling’ (61%) and ‘increased con-
servation awareness’ (60%; Fig. 7). Forty-two per cent also
thought ‘wildlife depletion’ had depressed poaching. Most
respondents (905%) supported wildlife recovery in
Kuiburi; 80% were indifferent, and 15% were opposed.
Discussion
We investigated social and biological responses to man-
agement interventions aimed at stemming poaching to aid
Fig. 6. Poaching pressure and patrol effort, before and after
intensive outreach, in eight patrol zones of Kuiburi National
Park, Thailand, 2010. Error bars = 1 SD.
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478
13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Outreach to reduce wildlife poaching 1475
Fig. 7. Reasons for perceived decline in poaching between 2006
and 2010, given by questionnaire respondents (n = 311) from 12
villages encircling Kuiburi National Park, Thailand.
species recovery. Our study is thus an important contribu-
tion to evidence-based conservation and one of just a few
that monitored and measured the links between conserva-
tion actions, human behaviour changes and biological
outcomes (Geldman et al. 2013). The urgency of reducing
poaching at our site ruled out a formal control-interven-
tion framework, as treatments (outreach, patrolling) were
applied everywhere. Instead of untreated controls, we
observed key processes (poaching pressure, wildlife abun-
dance) before, during and after management interventions
(Geldman et al. 2013). To compensate for uncertainty
about the causal link between treatments and observed
responses, we pursued multiple independent lines of evi-
dence, both biological and social, to draw inferences
about the system. This allows investigators to assess con-
sistency in results and weigh evidence for causation in
observational studies (Shaffer & Johnson 2008). More-
over, comparing results from several independent sources
of data (triangulation) helped us more confidently address
the sensitive issue of poaching (Gavin, Solomon & Blank
2010).
TRENDS IN POACHING PRESSURE AND WILDLIFE
STATUS
We observed a park-wide decline in poaching over 3 years
(Fig. 3) and widespread shorter-term declines in nearly all
patrol zones (Fig. 6). Local people’s perceptions corre-
sponded to these empirical observations: nearly all
respondents reported a decline in poaching. These conver-
gent results, combined with our attention to potential pit-
falls in the use of patrol data, provide strong inference
that poaching pressure significantly declined in Kuiburi.
Populations of ungulates and porcupines increased or
were stable in almost all cases. This is most likely a
response to reduced poaching. The three sites we moni-
tored were exceptional in harbouring most remaining
ungulates in the park and thus faced potentially severe
poaching pressure if poachers had been active. Many
tropical ungulates are particularly susceptible to hunting;
even moderate hunting pressure is enough to reduce their

1476 R. Steinmetz et al.
densities (Peres 2000). Population trends were not influ-
enced by natural predation, as tigers were consistently
scarce (<10 individuals) and leopard and dhole numbers
were stable or even increased during the study (Steinmetz
et al. 2011). Habitat conditions did not change during the
study (i.e. forest cover, fruit production cycles). Had
poaching in Kuiburi not declined, these species are likely
to have declined further instead of remaining stable or
increasing. The failure of sambar to recover at two of our
sites mirrors a widespread pattern of stagnant growth or
decline of this species in South-East Asia (Steinmetz et al.
2010).
WHAT CAUSED POACHING TO DECLINE?
The weight of evidence from four independent lines of
enquiry in our study points to outreach as the main driver
of the decline in poaching. First, there was no evidence
that patrols deterred poachers; thus, poaching likely
declined for other reasons. Monthly patrol effort per zone
was typically <2 days (Fig. 3), probably too low to deter
poachers. Poachers in tropical protected areas are often
not deterred by patrolling even at higher levels (Burton
et al. 2012), particularly in forested habitats where visibil-
ity is low (Jachmann 2008). Secondly, poaching declined
sharply after intensive outreach, unrelated to patrol effort
(Fig. 6). Thirdly, patrol effort was not associated with
increases in wildlife occupancy. Finally, outreach was the
most commonly stated reason local people gave for the
decline in poaching. Although ranger patrolling was
the second most common reason given, there was no
corresponding empirical evidence that patrolling actually
suppressed poaching. We think this discrepancy arose
because most respondents were not poachers, but believed
they would have been deterred by patrols had they been
poachers. Our study did not account for legal or policy
changes (i.e. severity of punishments) that could have
influenced poaching; however, policies were consistent
during our study, both locally and nationally, so do not
explain changes in poaching pressure. We doubt that our
physical presence itself deterred poachers, as outreach
occurred in villages, not in the forest where poachers
operated.
This study was one of the first to apply social-psychol-
ogy theory to biodiversity conservation. We tried to
simultaneously raise awareness, build motivation, offer
opportunities and increase local people’s control of the
future of their environment. Behaviour change is pro-
moted when these conditions converge (Rothschild 1999).
Although we targeted important social-psychological pro-
cesses, we did not measure perceptions about them and
do not rule out other explanations for observed behaviour
changes; the theory we applied remains a hypothesis for
why particular outcomes were observed. Six local leaders,
in subsequent discussions in 2012, opined that poaching
had declined because of ‘more messages’, ‘more awareness
and concern about this issue’, ‘more pressure’ and
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478
13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
‘increased consideration for local leaders and park staff’.
Thus, existing and potential poachers apparently
responded to new attitudes and expectations of their lead-
ers, neighbours, children and even park staff. Pressure
against poaching came partly from local leaders them-
selves; since 2008, many of them were increasingly outspo-
ken against poaching. Another possible path was through
children: teachers in the 11-school Wildlife Recovery Net-
work explicitly urged children to try to influence their
families. On Indian Ocean islands, local activism of chil-
dren led to reduced poaching of commercially valuable
fruit bats (Trewhella 2005). These observations suggest
that some of the social pressure pathways hypothesized in
Fig. 1 did emerge.
The apparent effectiveness of outreach might have been
enhanced by two characteristics of Kuiburi’s poachers:
they are minorities (in number, not ethnicity), and they
tend to have land. Social pressure could thus flow from
the majority, while poachers fell back on agriculture to
support themselves in place of poaching. Communities
dominated by landless people all heavily dependent on
poaching might be less susceptible to outreach (or patrol-
ling for that matter). In contrast, communities oriented
towards subsistence hunting might be especially receptive
to partnerships focused on improving sustainability of
local hunting (Steinmetz, Chutipong & Seuaturien 2006).
A ROLE FOR LOCAL PEOPLE
Protected area patrolling and outreach should have
exactly the same goal – behaviour change. But the differ-
ent concepts underlying each approach promote very dif-
ferent roles for local people (Fig. 1). Law enforcement
patrolling focuses solely on the poacher and relies on fear
to motivate compliance. Fear can compel changes in
behaviour, but without changes in underlying social
norms, people usually revert to past patterns when
enforcement falters (Sommerville et al. 2010). This hap-
pened recently in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India, where
poaching gangs rapidly eradicated tigers after a lapse in
law enforcement; gangs operated with impunity among
buffer-zone residents who were indifferent or embittered
towards the park (Rangarajan & Shahabuddin 2006).
Whereas law enforcement concentrates on the poacher,
outreach strives to alter the social conditions surrounding
him (Fig. 1). Outreach thus seeks changes in behaviour
that are internally motivated. Internal motivations result
in more stable behavioural changes, whereas motivations
derived from external sources such as punishment or eco-
nomic rewards (i.e. proverbial sticks and carrots) depend
on uninterrupted flows of incentives (De Young 2000).
In our experience, conservationists in Asia tend to
regard outreach and community-based conservation as
nice enhancements for a protected area, but the core busi-
ness should be direct protection through patrolling and
enforcement. This reflects an understandable desire for
direct action to confront the relentless killing that is

emptying the region’s forests of wildlife, and a belief that
law enforcement is the most effective way to achieve this.
But this viewpoint is not founded on empirical data and
fails to appreciate that engaging communities to suppress
poaching is direct protection. In opposition to this pre-
vailing view, our results indicate that changes in human
behaviour needed to initiate wildlife recovery can be
achieved through scientifically designed and proactive
park outreach that enlists the support of local people.
No single approach to resource management is a pana-
cea. Outreach and patrolling are complementary activities,
and the most effective protection for wildlife will probably
involve both. Where global markets offer very high prices
for non-substitutable wildlife products such as ivory and
rhino horn, patrolling seems essential. However, intensive
poaching by professional gangs often overwhelms even
very intensive patrolling (Milliken & Shaw 2012). Having
local community allies seems even more critical when
poaching pressure emanates from distant markets and
non-local poachers. For example, in Kuiburi, question-
naires indicated diminishing involvement of outsiders (in
addition to local villagers) in poaching-related activities;
decreasing local tolerance for poaching may have
obstructed outsiders (Fig. 1b), possibly by reducing access
to local guides. We believe conservationists should treat
community engagement with the same seriousness and
urgency as they do patrolling and enforcement – protected
areas need strong alliances with local people to overcome
the rising tide of poaching in Asia.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant
Conservation, and Dr Songtam Suksawang, for project permission and
collaboration. This project was funded by Francois and Sheila Brutsch,
WWF Germany, WWF France, WWF US, WWF Sweden, WWF
Denmark, WWF Austria, The Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund (US
Fish and Wildlife Service), and Keidanren Nature Conservation Fund. We
are grateful to Julia Jones, Thomas Gray, Will Duckworth and two
anonymous reviewers for extensive and helpful comments. In Kuiburi, we
thank Boonlue Poonnil, Chonlatorn Chamnankit and park rangers who
worked with us – the success of this project is theirs.
References
Ajzen, I. & Madden, T.J. (1986) Prediction of goal directed behavior: atti-
tudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.
Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and the Commonwealth.
(1999) Ethical guidelines for good research practice.
Burton, A.C., Sam, M.K., Balangtaa, C. & Brashares, J.S. (2012) Hierar-
chical multi-species modeling of carnivore responses to hunting, habitat
and prey in a west African protected area. Public Library of Science
One, 7, e38007.
Ceballos, G. & Ehrlich, P.R. (2002) Mammal population losses and the
extinction crisis. Science, 296, 904–907.
Corlett, R.T. (2007) The impact of hunting of the mammalian fauna of
tropical Asian forests. Biotropica, 39, 292–303.
De Young, R. (2000) Expanding and evaluating motives for environmen-
tally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 509–526.
Gavin, M.C., Solomon, J.N. & Blank, S.G. (2010) Measuring and
monitoring illegal use of natural resources. Conservation Biology, 24,
89–100.
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478
13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Outreach to reduce wildlife poaching 1477
Geldman, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, M. &
Burgess, N.D. (2013) Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in
reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation,
161, 230–238.
Hines, J.E. (2006) PRESENCE2- Software to estimate patch occupancy
and related parameters, USGS-PWRC. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/
software/presence.html.
Hines, J.E., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.A., MacKenzie, D.I., Gopalaswamy,
A.M., Kumar, N.S. & Karanth, K.U. (2010) Tigers on trails:
occupancy modeling for cluster sampling. Ecological Applications, 20,
1456–1466.
Jachmann, H. (2008) Illegal wildlife use and protected area management
in Ghana. Biological Conservation, 141, 1906–1918.
Jacobson, S.K., McDuff, M.D. & Monroe, M.C. (2006) Conservation Edu-
cation and Outreach Techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Kaplan, S. (2000) Human nature and environmentally responsible behav-
ior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 491–508.
Keane, A., Jones, J.P.G. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011) Encounter data in
resource management and ecology: pitfalls and possibilities. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 48, 1164–1173.
Keane, A., Jones, J.P.G., Edwards-Jones, G. & Milner-Gulland, E.J.
(2008) The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and
compliance in conservation. Animal Conservation, 11, 75–82.
Leader-Williams, N. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (1993) Policies for the
enforcement of wildlife laws: the balance between detection and penal-
ties in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Conservation Biology, 7, 611–617.
MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Lachmann, G.B., Droege, S., Royle, J.A.
& Langtimm, C.A. (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detec-
tion probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83, 2248–2255.
McCleery, R.A., Ditton, R.B., Sell, J. & Lopez, R.R. (2006) Understand-
ing and improving attitudinal research in wildlife sciences. Wildlife Soci-
ety Bulletin, 34, 537–541.
McFadden, D. (1999) Rationality for economists? Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 19, 73–105.
Milliken, T. & Shaw, J. (2012) The South Africa – Viet Nam Rhino Horn
Trade Nexus: A Deadly Combination of Institutional Lapses, Corrupt
Wildlife Industry Professionals and Asian Crime Syndicates. TRAFFIC,
Cambridge, UK.
Morrison, J.C., Sechrest, W., Dinerstein, E., Wilcove, D.S. & Lamoreux,
J.F. (2007) Persistence of large mammal faunas as indicators of global
human impacts. Journal of Mammalogy, 88, 1363–1380.
Ostrom, E. (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 137–158.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C., Norgaard, R.B. & Policansky, D. (1999)
Revisiting the commons: local lessons and global challenges. Science,
284, 278–282.
Peres, C.A. (2000) Evaluating the impact and sustainability of subsistence
hunting at multiple Amazonian forest sites. Hunting for Sustainability in
Tropical Forests. (eds J.G. Robinson & E.L. Bennett), pp. 31–56.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Pretty, J. (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources.
Science, 302, 1912–1914.
Rangarajan, M. & Shahabuddin, G. (2006) Displacement and relocation
from protected areas: towards a biological and historical synthesis. Con-
servation and Society, 4, 359–378.
Rao, M., Htun, S., Zaw, T. & Myint, T. (2010) Hunting, livelihoods and
declining wildlife in the Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary, north Myan-
mar. Environmental Management, 46, 143–153.
Redford, K.H., Ray, J.C. & Boitani, L. (2011) Mapping and navigating
mammalian conservation: from analysis to action. Philosophical Trans-
actions of the Royal Society B, 366, 2712–2721.
Rothschild, M.L. (1999) Carrots, sticks, and promises: a conceptual frame-
work for the management of public health and social issue behaviors.
Journal of Marketing, 63, 24–37.
Rovero, F. & Marshall, A.R. (2009) Camera trapping photographic rate
as an index of density in forest ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology,
46, 1011–1017.
Royle, J.A. & Nichols, J.D. (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated
presence absence data. Ecology, 84, 777–790.
Schipper, J., et al. (2008) The status of the world’s land and marine mam-
mals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science, 322, 225–230.
Schultz, P.W. (2011) Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology,
25, 1080–1083.
Shaffer, T.L. & Johnson, D.H. (2008) Ways of learning: observational
studies versus experiments. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 4–13.

1478 R. Steinmetz et al.
Sommerville, M., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Rahajaharison, M. & Jones,
J.P.G. (2010) Impact of community-based payment for environmental
services intervention on forest use in Menabe, Madagascar. Conservation
Biology, 24, 1488–1498.
St. John, F.A.V., Edwards-Jones, G. & Jones, J.P.G. (2010) Conservation
and human behavior: lessons from social psychology. Wildlife Research,
37, 658–667.
Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, W. & Seuaturien, N. (2006) Collaborating to
conserve large mammals in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, 20,
1391–1401.
Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, W., Seuaturien, N., Cheungsaat, E. & Khaengk-
hetgarn, M. (2010) Population recovery patterns of Southeast Asian
ungulates after poaching. Biological Conservation, 143, 42–51.
Steinmetz, R., Seuaturien, N., Srirattanaporn, S. & Poonnil, B. (2011)
Experimental Approaches Towards Tiger Recovery in Kuiburi National
Park, Thailand. WWF Thailand and Department of National Parks,
Wildlife, and Plant Conservation, Bangkok, Thailand.
Stern, M.J. (2008) Coercion, voluntary compliance and protest: the role of
trust and legitimacy in combating local opposition to protected areas.
Environmental Conservation, 35, 200–210.
Sutinen, J.G. & Kuperan, K. (1999) A socio-economic theory of
regulatory compliance. International Journal of Social Economics, 26,
174–193.
Trewhella, W.J., et al. (2005) Environmental education as a component of
multidisciplinary conservation programs: lessons from conservation
© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–1478
13652664, 2014, 6, Downloaded from https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12239 by Test, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
initiatives for critically endangered fruit bats in the western Indian
Ocean. Conservation Biology, 19, 75–85.
Tyler, T.R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT, USA.
Vie, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C. & Stuart, S.N. (2009) Wildlife in a Changing
World—an Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Wondolleck, J.M. & Yaffee, S.L. (2000) Making Collaboration Work: Les-
sons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Received 7 September 2013; accepted 18 February 2014
Handling Editor: Julia Jones
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version
of this article.
Appendix S1. Details of outreach approach and techniques.
Appendix S2. Thai language abstract.